I have started on creating a mod for TripleA based upon East & West. You can follow my progress at https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/4059/a-new-year-and-a-new-mod?_=1738631120040

My plan is to starting by implemented East & West rules on an existing map and then using the East & West map, thereby creating two mods. I see people have tried the Classic, Revised and Global maps. I was thinking of the Anniversary map or the Big World map from TripleA.

Any assistance or comments would be appreciated.

@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.

@barnee I will use an option on the defense strength of tanks, with a default of 3. I have started working on this for a bit every day. Right now I am adapting everything to the Big_World map. When that is done I will create a custom map for East & West.

@RogerCooper East & West has a rule that allows tanks to move out of a territory in non-combat movement. As TripleA does not support this, should I just ignore it or increase the defense of tanks to 3 in compensation?

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

is there any plausible reason to attack a major neutral except maybe USSR attacking the Arab league?

It’s kinda been theorized that USSR might want to attack China, in certain situations.

If China isn’t defending North Korea, or worse, if they’re actively letting NATO move units through their territory, the USSR might be better off attacking.
The other thing is that the complication table is weighted more toward China’s outrage than the other 2 majors, so if the USSR has the ability to send nukes, it’s also generally assumed that they will, whereas the US is less likely to use them; in a long enough game, that will swing China towards favoring NATO, so the USSR might pre-empt that at some point.

The other option is as a game-ender, towards obtaining an economic victory. In fact, such a thing is probably pretty impossible without invading most of the neutrals on the Eurasian continent.

P.S. I still think modeling neutral contributions as N.O.'s is an option to keep in mind

Implementing the complication table would be difficult. The game rules already suggest dropping the complication table as an optional rule. Note that it would be possible to use having a nuclear weapon as trigger but not using a nuclear weapon. I think that in practice the high cost of nuclear weapons is more of a deterrent than the nuclear complication rules.

Using National Objectives for neutral contributions is fine.

@RogerCooper After reviewing maps, I concluded that the East & West map is closest to the TripleA Big World map, so I will implement it first on Big World and then use the actual map.

In terms of neutral handling I see the following possibilties

• Major neutrals impassable except that Russia may attack the Arab League.

• Major neutrals are fully playable and can be allied through the diplomacy technology table.

• Major neutrals can be allied through the diplomacy technology table and are absorbed into the allying power. They are impassable until then.

@The-Janus So is there any plausible reason to attack a major neutral except maybe USSR attacking the Arab league? It sounds like there isn’t . Which is easy enough to handle in a scenario.

It seems a shame to have deployments defined for major neutrals, and not get to use them.

As always, I can have multiple scenarios which handle the major neutrals differently.

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:
Have you considered the knock-on effects of changing those mechanics?
Would you want China and OAS to become active powers?
Or would they just swing all their income, units, and territories to USSR/USA in one dice roll?

I was assuming they would become active powers on their own. But that is not the only possibility. You could have them join the power recruiting them.

The problem with E&W rules for neutrals is that they are just passive sources of income, that can also be attacked. That is not very interesting.

We could also try eliminating major neutrals entirely. The major neutrals could be handled like minor neutrals and recruited through technology or events. That is arguably more realistic and probably more interesting with wars breaking out in unexpected places.

@The_Good_Captain Tech will be optional

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@RogerCooper said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

you either get them or you don’t

You’re going to have to unpack what you mean by that.
If China is allowed to effectively be a 16 IPC swing on a random die roll, I’m calling bullshit.

When you “get” a major neutral, would you get all of their units/territories? Or if they can still be influenced back to the other side, are you basically suggesting we compress the 9-point influence scale down to just 3 (positive, neutral, negative)?

Yes, you are correct I am proposing effective a 3 point scale.

An alternative would be variable entry. China always comes on the Soviet side, OAS on the NATO side. The Arab League would still be random.

As this a mod, I could have different scenarios with different rules.

Looking at the East & West rules, it seems unlikely that you could ever bring a major neutral over. You only have a 1/6 chance to move it one step and your opponent can deploy spies to counter you.

As E&W is set in 1948, the Chinese Civil War is still raging and a Nationalist victory possible.

@The-Janus said in "East & West" by Imp Games - Discussion:

@RogerCooper said in “East & West” by Imp Games - Discussion:
It’d be interesting if you could also code in Nuclear Subs being able to go under the ice cap? Maybe there’s a way to model it as a strait/canal, to make that work.

I could add an ice cap territory. However, I doubt that it would have a significant effect on play

The problem that immediately jumps off the page to me, is that you couldn’t throw the two types of A-bombs into a tech pool, and have it work out with just random rolling; I assume that might tie into this comment?

I would implement nuclear weapons using the rules from the “The Grand War”.

I’m not familiar with how that game does it. I also would have to assume that the nuclear complication table is off the… well, table.>
TripleA can support tech trees. The nuclear complication table is off the table. As the Soviets would also start with fission bombs, there is not much point to creating a tech tree.

From my experience with Europe 1940, I think you would have to treat each major neutral similarly to how the “true neutrals” are modeled, in that game i.e. declaring war on one declares war on all. Activating the neutral units properly RAW is going to be the real problem, I’d imagine – just based on how in A&A games everything is dependent on moving units into those territories, whereas in E&W it’s not. The other thing you could maybe do is represent the income provided by the major neutrals as “National Objectives” that you achieve through spying… assuming there’d be a way to code those two systems to interact together.>

The major neutrals would be handled as separate countries that could be allied with. I am not going to try handle the multi-step process of getting neutrals, you either get them or you don’t. However, rolls on the diplomacy table are more likely to get minor neutrals than major neutrals.

An interesting question is what to do if you gain the support of a major neutral that is already allied with your opponent. Does it?

• Have no effect
• Go back to neutrality
• Flip immediately to the new alliance

All of these are interesting possibilities.

@The-Janus Your MSpaint version is good starting point for me.